Were any laws broken by releasing the SC decision early?

[fescuerescue]

Certainly confidentiality agreements and at least a few people will lose their careers. (responsible or not)

But I'm wondering. What law protects this information?

It's not like the military, where there a many many laws covering classified information etc.

[J_William_Ryan]

1. No.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Ashton Fox Embry who leaked a Supreme Court decision was indicted...

to deprive the United States of its lawful right and duty of promulgating information in the way and at the time required by law and at departmental regulation.

See:
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/clerk-thief-his-life-baker-visiting-judge-tells-story-1919-supreme-court-leak
https://calapplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2019.02.25-Appellate-Zealots-BF-on-Selling-secrets-The-disturbing-tale-of-Supreme-Court-clerk-Ashton-Embry.pdf

Realistically, the only punishment the current leaker likely faces is being fired.

[fescuerescue]

4. Thanks. I hadn't heard of this one.

[Ocelot II]

6. Very different situation having to do with using inside court information

for financial gain. Laws have changed a lot since 1919.

[PoliticAverse]

8. The law he was indicted on did not involve financial gain.

> Laws have changed a lot since 1919.

The second article I linked to suggests other laws that might cover the issue.

[gldstwmn]

16. They're a federal employee so termination is highly unlikely.

Is someone really trying to assert that after ruling a woman doesn't have a right to privacy that the court has a right to privacy with this decision? That's preposterous.

[PoliticAverse]

17. If the leaker is a Supreme Court clerk they'd be "gone in 20 seconds"... n/t

[PSPS]

18. Yes, gone. But no laws were broken.

[gldstwmn]

23. Have you ever tried to fire a federal employee?

Do you remember Linda Tripp? Also you're assuming it's a clerk. What if it's not?

[PoliticAverse]

24. I was not assuming, which is why I wrote "if"......

> What if it's not?

When a government employee responsible for printing the court's final opinions was suspected of leaking he just got transferred.

[RobinA]

26. Well, They Want

the freedom not to wear a mask or get vaxed, but they won't extend freedom to a pregnant woman.

[Tickle]

3. I don't think so

I've been trying to find out. The only thing that seems consistent from reading is the person is going to get disbarred.

I think that is it

[Phoenix61]

19. I doubt they'd be disbarred. Very few attorneys are. nt

[pwb]

5. Got to keep our eye on the ball here.

Who leaked matters not. The opinion is the ball. IMO.

[PoliticAverse]

9. Indeed. n/t

[ZonkerHarris]

10. The leaker is a hero and needs to be helped or protected if possible

[PoliticAverse]

11. If the leaker is pro-choice they'll be treated as a hero by those that agree and

will likely have lots of well paid speaking engagements ahead.

[ZonkerHarris]

12. I'd love to handle their book and movie deal.

That's my day job

[PoliticAverse]

14. I'm curious if you know offhand what type of advance people in similar situations have gotten. n/t

[Ocelot II]

13. Not necessarily. There is speculation that the leaker came from the anti-Roe bloc

and that it was intended to keep the conservative justices from changing their positions before final publication. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/03/alito-roe-leaked-draft-disaster-for-supreme-court/ There was little to be gained by pro-Roe advocates by releasing information a bit early that everyone expected anyhow. Cui bono? Not the liberals.

[ZonkerHarris]

15. interesting theory. If so then it feels like a fire you start to put out another fire but gets

out of control on you.

[fescuerescue]

25. Most of us are capable of maintaining more than one thought throughout the day

I don't think the question is out of line.

ANd I think it does matter. Especially if it turns out the leaker is right wing.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

7. Zero chance of that.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

20. What we know about the investigation into the Supreme Court leak-What Crime is at play

There is no crime at play here

Link to tweet

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/politics/supreme-court-leak-investigation/index.html?utm_term=link&utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2022-05-03T23%3A43%3A04&utm_medium=social

's unclear what crime could be investigated and whether the FBI and the Justice Department have the authority to look into a leak that doesn't have to do with classified or sensitive information.

Moreover, after leading politically sensitive investigations of presidential candidates and a sitting president in recent years, Justice Department and FBI officials are loath to get the bureau involved in what may end up being a political effort to try to affect the outcome of the court's final opinion in the case.

"Leaks of government information, by themselves, are not crimes," said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst who's a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "Usually, leakers are prosecuted for leaking classified information, which this isn't, or for offenses related to how they obtained the information they leaked."

"But without one of those hooks, or some kind of financial harm to the government arising from the leak, there's no federal criminal statute that makes leaking of simply confidential governmental information unlawful," Vladeck added.

[onenote]

21. Maybe none. But see this:

https://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Lutkenhaus-J..pdf

[brooklynite]

22. Potentally 18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1664-protection-government-property-theft-government-information